most especially the representative of the Lord's priestly character, the one who especially represents him as to love, thus the priest of the highest order.

Such are some of the grounds on which we differ from Mr. Mason in his view of marriage. And we believe all the most intelligent members of our church in this country will be found to side far more with us than with him in this matter. At all events, we feel very confident that marriage cannot be too highly elevated any where, but especially in the New Jerusalem, that comes down from God out of heaven. And sure are we, that regarding it ourselves, and teaching our children to regard it, as a most holy sacrament of our faith—as a holy covenant entered into before the Lord God Almighty himself!— we shall do the most that we can to found our holy church upon its only true and lasting basis-the Rock of Ages!

We have now done. We cannot review our work. The sight appals us. We too well know how heavily laden it is with defects; and, not bearing to look upon its deformities, we would much more gladly consign it to the darkness and silence of oblivion, than now usher it to the searching light of such a day as this. But this may not be. Though it be a deformed one, we dare not strangle our offspring at its birth! It was begun at the mandate of imperative duty. We sought the Lord's auspices in its beginning. We have incessantly prayed that it might be continued under his providential guidance and governance. And it is now most devoutly ended in Him. May his blessing be upon it! May his church throw her mantle of charity over it! Mercifully pardoned by him, and considerately borne with by her, may it do its feeble work of use, and then go down soon to merited forgetfulness. The Central Convention, to which this report was to have been made at first, is now virtually defunct. The most wise and intelligent of those who took part in constituting that body have gone into the spiritual world, or otherwise left it. To judge from its recent proceedings, those who are now leading it, or controlling its measures, do not see the principles on which it was originally founded, or are not able to carry them out. Any how, those principles are in fact abandoned. So that we do not see how we can remain much longer in its connection. And we have not the least idea that what is set forth in this report can receive from it even kind consideration, much less any thing like adoption. Therefore, although we apprehend that the views herein set forth will be deemed by many too high for practical application in the present state of our church, yet trusting, in the divine providence of our Heavenly Father, that they may be of use in some not far distant time, this report is now most respectfully submitted to the candid judgment of all sincere seekers and lovers of truth, receivers of our heavenly doctrines, in these United States,

By their servant in the Lord,

R. DE CHARMS.

Baltimore, Nov. 10, 1848.

A FEW OMITTED NOTES.

Owing to the fact that this report was printed in Philadelphia, while the writer of it was residing in Baltimore, and therefore the proof sheets had to be sent to and fro between the two cities, a good many mistakes have been suffered to go uncorrected. And in the hurry of transmitting copy, one or two bottom notes were omitted, which are inserted here.

On page 70, line 10 from the bottom, there should have been an asterisk at the word "number," referring to this note—

* In a letter from Mr. Francis Bailey, directed to " John Young, Esq., Westmoreland," and dated « Philad., April 10, 1792," there is the following paragraph: "I know it will give you pleasure, when I tell you that, on Sunday was a week, the doctrine of the New Jerusalem Church was publicly preached in Baltimore court house by Mr. Wilmer, formerly an episcopal clergyman of Harford County. Mr. Bayard writes, there were twenty-five of the brethren, and that the house was much crowded.'"

Again, a note was omitted at the bottom of page 76 also. With an asterisk at the word "Paris," in the 22d line from the top, there should have been the following

Manchester.

*The Rev. Mr. Clowes, in a letter to the Rev. Mr. Hargrove, dated Dec. 29th, 1802," says By a letter received lately from Paris, I find that your friend Mr. Mather is at present settled in that city, where there is a small society of readers, amounting to ten or twelve, who meet every week at his house."

Page 161: "This Mr. Silas Ensign probably received a license to preach and baptize from the church at Philadelphia, as did Mr. Adam Klingle and Mr. John Lister, who are not mentioned, as having been licensed, on its Book of Records." After our report was finished, we incidentally laid our hands on a package of documents which had been misplaced. Among others was a loose half sheet of paper, on which were written the minutes of "a meeting of the minister and vestry of the New Jerusalem Church of Philadelphia. As these minutes throw light upon the above sentence, as well as set forth the official concurrence of the minister and vestry of the Philadelphia church in Mr. Holley's ordination, we transcribe them hereOctober 22d, 1822..

At a meeting of the minister and vestry of the New Jerusalem Church of Philadel phia-present, Rev. M. M. Carll, J. W. Condy, D. Thunn, W. Schlatter, D. Lammot, J. Parr, and S. Hemple-the Rev. Mr. Carll presented a letter from the Rev. J. Hargrove of Baltimore, containing a communication from John Campbell, Sen., Robert Campbell, Wm. McKee, and A. Russell, on behalf of the church at Abingdon in Virginia, requesting the assent of this church to the ordination of Mr. Nathaniel Holley as a priest and teaching minister of the New Jerusalem.

Whereupon, Resolved, That the minister and vestry of the New Jerusalem Church of Philadelphia do approve and assent to the ordination of Mr. Nathaniel Holley as a priest and teaching minister of the Lord's Church of the New Jerusalem, with power, under the authority and at the request of the church of Abingdon in Virginia, and in the manner, and under such restrictions as they may prescribe, to ordain other priests and ministers of the New Jerusalem; with power also to conduct public worship, to celebrate the sacrament of the Lord's supper, marriages, baptisms and funerals, and gene. rally to perform all holy rites and divine ordinances in the church.

The Rev. M. M. Carll submitted to the consideration of the vestry the propriety of granting a license to Mr. Andrew Klingle, whereupon it was

Resolved, That Mr. Andrew Klingle be licensed to preach and teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem as contained in the theological writings of E. Swedenborg, to administer the sacrament of baptism, and to officiate at funerals, agreeably to the order heretofore prescribed in such cases.

Rev. Mr Carll also submitted the propriety of granting a license to Mr. Seddons, of Frankford, and Mr. John Lister, now of Hulmeville; whereupon it was

Resolved, That a license be issued to each of them according to the order heretofore prescribed.

On motion, it was Resolved, That the Rev. Mr. Carll be authorized to issue from time to time, as he shall think proper, a certificate of ordination on parchment, with the seal of the church, to such priests and teaching ministers as have already been ordained under the authority of this church.

Adjourned.

These, having been minutes of the Vestry and not of the Church, were not entered on the Church's Book of Records; and therefore we could not state positively, what is here seen to be true, that not only Messrs. Klingle and Lister, but also Mr. Seddons, of Frankford, were licensed by the Philadelphia church. Among the documents above mentioned, there are also the blank forms of license for Messrs. Klingle and Lister; and it is remarkable, that the form for Mr. Klingle's license has this clause-"Do hereby grant unto the said Andrew Klingle, for the term of years from the date hereof, License and Authority to teach the said Doctrines, to celebrate public worship, the sacrament of the Lord's supper, baptisms and funerals . It will be recollected that Mr. Klingle asked for ordination into the ministry; that his application was made to Mr. Carll, and by him laid before the church; and that the meeting of the church, to which it was submitted, referred it to the vestry. By this blank form-evidently drawn up by an officer of the vestry-it will be seen that it was contemplated to give to Mr. Klingle a license similar to that given to Mr. Samuel Worcester. But the vestry concluded to give him a license with more limited powers; which, from this time, became the general rule.

Page 163: The Rev. M. B. Roche's "new-church brethren in Philadelphia tacitly concurred in his ordination." Among the misplaced documents above mentioned was the following, which indicates that a formal letter of recommendation to the church in Baltimore was given to Mr. Roche by the church in Philadelphia. There is, however, no documentary evidence of the fact that such a recommendatory letter was given or authorized by the Philadelphia church in any of its stated or special meetings; and, in the absence of such evidence, it does not do to assume that his ordination had the official concurrence of the church in Philadelphia :

To the New Jerusalem Church of Philadelphia:

BRETHREN Having, by divine mercy, been enabled to receive the heavenly doctrines of the Lord's New Church, and wishing to devote my future life to promote the truths now revealed by the Lord's Second Advent, I offer myself as a candidate for the sacred ministry, and desire your recommendatory letter to the Church in Baltimore.

Philadelphia, June 2d, 1823.

Yours, in New-Church Love,

M. B. ROCHE.

Page 168: "It had ceased to exercise any longer the functions of an ordaining minister." The last minister, in whose ordination the Philadelphia church took part, was the Rev. Isaac C. Worrell. Application for his ordination was made by the Free Will Baptists, of Frankford, who had come into the new church in a body under the lead of their minister, the Rev. Mr. Boyle. The application was made to the Rev. Messrs. Carll and Roche conjointly; but appears to have been submitted by Mr. Carll to the church of which he was the minister; for, in his case, the church, and not he, possessed the ordaining power. As we have seen, it was different in Mr. Roche's case; for ordaining power was given to him, and not to his church; so that there was no need of his submitting it to the church of

which he was pastor. The following is the original application for Mr. Worrell's ordination, in the form of a recommendation to that effect, which we have found in the archives of the Philadelphia church:

Frankford, July the 4th, 1823-67.

The Free Will Baptists of the New Jerusalem Church do certify that our brother Isaac C. Worrell is a regular Member in our connection, and in good standing with us: and we believe that he is called to disseminate the Heavenly Doctrines of the Lord's New Church, he feeling it his duty to be ordained according to the order of the same: we do, therefore, recommend him to our Brethren, the Rev. M. M. Carll and the Rev. M. B. Roche, of the New Jerusalem Church in Philadelphia, for the above mentioned purpose.

Thomas Rorer,

Samuel Swope,

Isaac Clayton,

Joseph Hallowell,

Richard D. Evans,
Thomas Rowland,

William Andrews,

Thomas Jones,

Robert Glenn,
John Baird,

William Birch,

This document has the following endorsement:

Thomas Shoemaker.

"Submitted to the N. J. Church of Philada., 31 Aug., 1823-67.
D. LAMMOT, Sec. of Vestry."

N. B. The Postscriptum was to have come between this and the Appendix. The three Reviews in this were to have been numbered as Documents for History Nos. XLV. XLVI. and XLVII.; so that the first document of the Appendix, which, to facilitate the publication of our work, was printed some time ago, with numeral folios,-is No. XLVIII. This statement is made here to account for the hiatus of the three above numbers in the series of our documents.

APPENDIX

ΤΟ

REPORT ON THE TRINE,

CONTAINING

FURTHER DOCUMENTS FOR HISTORY.

No. XLVIII.

INQUIRY RESPECTING THE OFFICE OF MINISTERS IN THE NEW CHURCH.

By way of Answer to the Question, "By whom can the Sacraments be lawfully and properly administered?”

BY THE REV. S. NOBLE.

In order to see the question respecting the administration of the sacraments by the proper persons in its true light, it is necessary to be previously satisfied upon these three points: First, Whether a peculiar order of persons to act as ministers or priests is to be maintained in the New Church;-Second, What are the functions belonging to them; -Third, How they are to be appointed.

1. As to the first question,-Whether a peculiar order of persons, to act as priests or ministers, is to be maintained in the New Church. Upon this, there cannot be any1 doubt; the herald of the New Church, Emanuel Swedenborg, having expressly declared the affirmative, in the work on the New Jerusalem and its Heavenly Doctrine. He there says, (n. 311) " There are amongst men two classes of affairs which ought to be conducted according to the laws of order; namely, that which relates to the things of heaven, and that which concerns the things of the world. The former are called ecclesiastical, and the latter civil affairs." He says also, (n. 312) that " It is impossible that order can be maintained in the world without governors," that "there must also be order amongst the governors themselves; lest any of them, from caprice, or ignorance, should sanction evils which are contrary to order, and thereby destroy it. This is guarded

against by the appointment of superior and inferior rulers, amongst whom there is subordination” (n. 313), and that "governors appointed over those things amongst men which relate to heaven, or ecclesiastical affairs, are called priests, and their office is called the priesthood." (n. 314.)

Here we have the most direct assertion, that the administration of ecclesiastical matters, belongs, according to order, to priests or ministers. It is also indicated that there should be ministers of different degrees; for by the "superior and inferior rulers," here